Who is Roderick Johansen?

Roderick Johansen is an Ontario lawyer with 3 court cases on record from 2001 to 2015.

What courts has Roderick Johansen appeared in?

Roderick Johansen has appeared in Superior Court of Justice, Court of Appeal, with most appearances at the Superior Court of Justice.

How many cases has Roderick Johansen handled?

Roderick Johansen has 3 cases on record from 2001 to 2015.

What judges has Roderick Johansen appeared before?

Roderick Johansen has most frequently appeared before Justice F. Bruce Fitzpatrick, Justice Marrocco, Justice Osborne A.C.J.O..

Roderick Johansen

3 total

Arnone et al. v. Hacio et al., 2015 ONSC 5266

Competing summary judgment motions arose from acrimonious litigation following a lawyer's withdrawal from a Thunder Bay law firm and related management partnership.

The court held that summary judgment was inappropriate because multiple interrelated claims, including breach of trust, slander, defamation, and a separate substantial claim for work in progress and disbursements, would proceed regardless, creating risks of duplication and inconsistent findings.

In resolving factual matters relevant to case management, the court found the withdrawing partner did not actually leave the partnership until November 11, 2011, and that the associated family trust was required to withdraw from the management partnership on the same date.

Both summary judgment motions were dismissed and no costs were awarded.

SCJAug 21, 2015

Applicant Counsel

Filipovic et al. v. The Corporation of the Municipality of Shuniah, 2014 ONSC 1627

The defendant municipality sought leave to appeal an interlocutory injunction prohibiting public use of municipal land pending trial in a nuisance action brought by neighbouring landowners.

The court considered the test for leave under rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires either conflicting authority or good reason to doubt the correctness of the order combined with broader importance.

Although no conflicting jurisprudence was shown, the court held that the scope of the injunction—effectively barring all municipal use of public land—raised serious questions regarding judicial oversight of municipal policy decisions and therefore met the “doubt the correctness” test.

Leave to appeal the injunction and the associated costs order was granted.

However, the court declined to stay the injunction pending appeal, finding no irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the order.

SCJMar 18, 2014

Applicant Counsel

Industrial Hardwood Products (1996) Ltd. v. Hanlon, 2001 ONCA 8547

The appellants appealed an order prohibiting picketing at or adjacent to the respondent's business premises, arguing the order was ambiguous as to the location of the proscribed picketing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the picketing took place at the respondent's business premises and the order's reference to location was clear.

The Court also declined to interfere with the penalties imposed.

Respondent Counsel